quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Their cause is pretty reasonable. They want the US to

1) fuck off.

2) stop being a lapdog for Israel and propping Israel up with billions of dollars and arms.

3) fuck off.

How hard is it to fuck off? For an empire, extremely hard I guess. US leaders must wake up at night with cold sweats at the idea of a country in the world not being subservient to them.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 07-24-2002).]

---

Since the majority of the world is behind us, I would re-think that.

Subserviant? Empire? I suggest you reapeat school and learn which empire controlled Canada long after we won our indepence

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Are you trying to equate the American Revolution to the terrorist attacks? If you are, I suggest you retake US History.

And NO...not in theory or tactics. These kill...I don't even give them credit for a defined political purpose. Any excuse is ex post facto as opposed to a priori.

Nox

---

Is this a biased opinion, seemings you're an american. Take away all your bias and look at it again, there is a similarity, and yes there are differances, but depending on where you're standing, the reality is, its the same bloody thing.

Nox, i have much respect for your opinions, so lets not drw this out into a grudge match.


Facts are unbiased.

I am a biased American. You claim objectivity because you are viewing the issue through (and I am making this assumption) non-American eyes. Is it possible that you too have your own bias? I will have zero grudge because of your opinion and I will continue intercourse on this subject, but I probably will not change my mind on this particular item.

I will never agree that an organization which targets innocent civilians equates to the American Revolution. Now if you find that offensive, I'm sorry. We have arrived at what historical interpretation is all about. If you disagree with me, fine. I do not take it personally, I just happen to disagree with the idea that the two situations are equal.

Nox

Nox, here is your reply:
Sorry it took so long to get.

Quote:-------------------------------
You answered your own question in the second paragraph...land of the free. Take a look at what the terrorists caused. We were the land of the free. Because of that, they stole airplanes and killed and destroyed. Would you do nothing about it and allow them to continue as Bill Clinton allowed them to continue?
---------------------------

Terror has always continued, throughout history, there have always been terrorists, and no one has ever stopped or slowed them.
Why kill when history shows the futility of it?

Quote:----------------------------------
To have freedom you must fight for it or others will take it away, as UBL and company are trying to do. Your alternative is to be a UBL lackey and live in a world dictated by the ayatollah.
-------------------------------
Right now palastinians are GWB lackeys. We are their lackeys, they are ours....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE? Its all the same either way. That doesnt erase the fact that the honorable, ethical, track is one of peace. Therefore I would prefer NOT to fight an live honorably. What good is a life if you are forced to become a worthless murderer to live?

Quote:-----------------------------------------
No they would not. Freedom is what they wanted.
-------------------------------
Did they want war?

Quote:---------------------------------
All you have to do is look at the AQ cells world-wide to see the deterrence. -----------------------------------

Amazing? Do you have a contact in the terrorist cells? How many have you met or spoken with? How can you claim to know whether or not deterrance has occured with NO information at all?

To this you might say that there has not been another 9/11 yet. That statement is made with the same conviction with with I could have told you a year ago that 9/11 was impossible because it had not happened yet.

It is equally likely that deterrance has NOT occured, and that the terrorist cells (seeing as they have failed to deter us from hurting them) are probably hard at work on something bigger. We deter them, they deter us.....as the topic says: "Where do we draw the line?"

Quote:--------------------
Killing UBL was not the ultimate goal of the war.
--------------------
It was A goal, was it not? Do you disagree that it has apparently failed in that goal?

Quote:-----------------------
Where did you get your numbers? Yes innocent (Possibly) civilians were killed. When the cowardly enemy hides behind a skirt, innocents will die, unfortunately. The alternative is to provide the enemy a sanctuary.
------------------------
The munbers can from the link posted at the top of my post. An article in the new york times. At posting the count was around 813 and they expected many more as they moved out into rural areas. I would say that part of the price of freedom is that you must allow some questionablr people walk in order to insure that you yourself can be free of suspicion.

----Dr Spock

Spock,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
Why kill when history shows the futility of it?

---

The purpose of war is to kill. When people get tired of killing, wars end. Right now we have a group of people who look forward to martyrdom. As long as that attitude prevails we can holler peace all we want and nothing will change...unfortunately.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
Therefore I would prefer NOT to fight an live honorably. What good is a life if you are forced to become a worthless murderer to live?

---

And if our opponents also believed that way, I would agree with you. Their attitude is that �Death to America�. Now you may feel secure because you may not be American, but how easy is it to substitute the name of any other nation for America? Once that happens, then what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
Amazing? Do you have a contact in the terrorist cells? How many have you met or spoken with? How can you claim to know whether or not deterrance has occured with NO information at all?

---

Yes. I have UBL�s number in my cell phone. Now let us get back to being serious again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
"Where do we draw the line?"

---

As I stated earlier�across UBL�s neck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
Did they want war?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
It was A goal, was it not? Do you disagree that it has apparently failed in that goal?

---

Yes, a goal. I am not certain that it hasn�t happened. However, because UBL kept in contact with his cells, there is a certain logic in keeping him alive to track his network.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
To this you might say that there has not been another 9/11 yet. That statement is made with the same conviction with with I could have told you a year ago that 9/11 was impossible because it had not happened yet.

---

Here again is where our opinions diverge. I do believe there has been deterrence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Spock:
I would say that part of the price of freedom is that you must allow some questionablr people walk in order to insure that you yourself can be free of suspicion.

---

If they were only �questionable� I might agree. People whose avowed purpose in life is to kill others hardly meet that definition.

Nox

Spock,
If you don't see results of deterring terror, then it's a good thing. since around 100% of attacks are carried out in secret, then when a plot is discovered and thwarted, there is deterrence. Results is when it's difficult or impossible to attack a target due to vigilence, and the target isn't attacked. Simply put, You can't see the results.

As for you not wanting to fight to protect your beliefs or yourself, well......I have no research to prove you are wrong in thought, nor examples. I sincerly wish you well and hope that you escape being a victim in your life. I just hope that if you have a family someday then your view may change somewhat.

For those there that don't want war, well no one does, "Live Free or Die" and to live free you have to prevent those that want to force their will on you.

Terror has always continued, That you are correct. We can however prevent it from happening on our soil or keep damage low if such an attack does occur, keep it isolated in countries where it grows, and make attacks less frequent. In short, deterrence all over.

quote:

---

"Live Free or Die" and to live free you have to prevent those that want to force their will on you.

---

Said as if the US has not been the one imposing it's will on others for decades

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Said as if the US has not been the one imposing it's will on others for decades

---

We didn't impose our will on people, they wanted to be free so we assisted them.

There are still people alive who believe that propaganda line? So the US was just "liberating" the people in Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, the Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya by either bombing the fuck out of them or sending in the CIA? I don't recall the people of those countries sending a "Dear Uncle Sam" letter asking for the bombs. A few US multinationals did though. When uppity peasants mess with Uncle Sam's money flow, he gets mad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
[B] Guatemala-Yes
Indonesia-To secure independence for East Timor.
Cuba-Yes
Congo-To keep people from getting hacked with machetes.
Peru-yes
Laos-yes
Vietnam-No Mouse, we went there for bamboo and rice you retard.
Grenada-To rescue American Students held there and to prevent it becoming a platform for Soviet Weapons.
Nicaragua-yes
Iran-yes
Panama-yes
Iraq-To free Kuwait
Somalia-To feed the starving and prevent an asshole from starving people
Sudan-Just avenging General Gordon.
Libya-In response for the murder of several American Soldiers. Qaddafi is fucking lucky Reagan was having a good day. He could have considered that an act of war.

---

by either bombing the fuck out of them or sending in the CIA? [/QUOTE]

We bombed the fuck out of Somalia, Congo and Peru? hmmmm, I thought it was more of sending in troops along with other countries to maintain order and feed locals. Must have missed something then. Maybe I should read the World Socialist Website more often to keep up. I guess war is the equivalent of a family outing to you. You think war is like that? Gee golly, some people really are braindead.

[/QUOTE]I don't recall the people of those countries sending a "Dear Uncle Sam" letter asking for the bombs. [/QUOTE]

No it's rather more elaborate then that I'm afraid. You should read up on diplomatic exchanges.

[/QUOTE]A few US multinationals did though. When uppity peasants mess with Uncle Sam's money flow, he gets mad. [/QUOTE]

Like i said, Somalia, Vietnam, several others, Rice, Chopsticks, sand, whatever else. That's what we want god dammit and no one is gonna stop us from getting it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
So the US was just "liberating" the people in Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, the Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya by either bombing the fuck out of them or sending in the CIA?

---

I've been to Peru. Laurie Berensen went there too. The US government didn't send either one of us. I came back a couple years ago (two weeks after I left). Laurie won't be back for another 25 years. But then each of us had different reasons for going. And by the way, I didn't see any bomb craters while I was there...and I do know what those look like.

Nox

The Peru thing was in 1965.

Joe, those US interventions were not to liberate anyone. You may believe the official line if it makes you happy, but it's just not accurate.

Anyone ever heard of Smedley Butler? He was a Major General. Here are some of his words on US interventions...

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


Hmm.. can't let this slide.

Guatemala-Yes - NO.. intervention was because the new government nationalized some US company land. Democratic elected government overthrown and is followed by 30 years of a brutal military dictatorship

Indonesia-To secure independence for East Timor. NO.. US supported the Indonesian military and was complicit with them for years.

Cuba-Yes NO.. US did not give a damn while the Cubans were repressed under the Batista regime. The only thing the US wants to "liberate" in Cuba now is the flow of money

Congo-To keep people from getting hacked with machetes NO.. the CIA had a role in the overthrow of Congo's first Prime Minister preceding the bloodbath

Laos-yes Carpet bombing is hardly liberating

Vietnam-No Mouse, we went there for bamboo and rice you retard. US protected French colonialism then tried to justify it to the public with a baloney "domino theory". Hooray for US

Grenada-To rescue American Students held there and to prevent it becoming a platform for Soviet Weapons. US overthrows a popular government again.. uses bullshit domino theory .. AGAIN

Nicaragua-yes Wrong again. Sandanistas overthrow yet another brutal and corrupt dictatorship. US wages covert war on Nicaragua to protect more fucking money flow and business interests

Iran-yes US overthrows elected government because of threat to corporate oil interests.. puts dictator Shah in place

Panama-yes No, US gets involved to gain Panama Canal

Iraq-To free Kuwait To protect a corrupt oil rich monarchy

Somalia-To feed the starving and prevent an asshole from starving people US gets involved because the pro-US dictator that Aidad overthrew allocated two-thirds of Somalia to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron, and Phillips before the civil war... and Aidad wasn't as friendly to those four oil giants as the overthrown dictator

Sudan-Just avenging General Gordon. I'm sure the pharmaceutical plant is sorry for harming General Gordon now

Libya-In response for the murder of several American Soldiers. Qaddafi is fucking lucky Reagan was having a good day. He could have considered that an act of war.Israel sunk the USS Liberty. Can someone PLEASE bomb them in revenge too? We know Israel sunk the USS Liberty. The Pan Am trial is still extremely questionable.


[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 07-27-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
The Peru thing was in 1965.

Joe, those US interventions were not to liberate anyone. You may believe the b]Israel sunk the USS Liberty. Can someone PLEASE bomb them in revenge too? We know Israel sunk the USS Liberty. The Pan Am trial is still extremely questionable.


[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 07-27-2002).][/B]

---

USS Liberty was not sunk. Read more instead of just blindly slinging shit hoping it will stick somewhere. Why don't we attack Iraq for the Stark Incident? how about North Korea for the USS Pueblo seizure and the downing of a unarmed military aircraft far outside it's airspace. I guess you only want to bomb israel instead of those countries. Why do you hate Jews so much?

USS Liberty wasn't sunk, I forgot. It was attacked because Israel attempted to sink it and just killed a bunch of soldiers in the process.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm

http://www.logogo.net/liberty.htm


Oh, and I don't hate Jews. I hate the Israeli establishment. I also hate the US establishment. Cry to the ADL and sue me... I don't care.

I'm pointing out the double standard. There is a bunch of proof that Israel deliberatly attacked the USS Liberty and they get billions a year from the US. There is only some questionable circumstancial evidence linking Libya to Pan Am and they get bombed right away. Fishy, no?

Edit: I see you still haven't quite mastered the use of the UBB Code

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 07-27-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
USS Liberty wasn't sunk, I forgot. It was attacked because Israel attempted to sink it and just killed a bunch of soldiers in the process.


Oh, and I don't hate Jews. I hate the Israeli establishment. I also hate the US establishment. Cry to the ADL and sue me... I don't care.

I'm pointing out the double standard. There is a bunch of proof that Israel deliberatly attacked the USS Liberty and they get billions a year from the US. There is only some questionable circumstancial evidence linking Libya to Pan Am and they get bombed right away. Fishy, no?

Edit: I see you still haven't quite mastered the use of the UBB Code

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 07-27-2002).]

---

What about the USS Stark? Uss Pueblo? Anything to do with us Attacking Israel you beg for us to "wipe it off the face of the earth" Yet when we wish to do the same to Iraq and North Korea it's "No those countries are none of our fucking business" It's pretty obvious you hate all Jews in particular. You cheer for Palestinian suicide bombers killing innocent Israelis, you bitch when they go in to desroy terror cells. Just wondering why you hate all Jews? Hitler was believed to have contracted an STD from a Jewish whore and his hate manifested from that. Dare I say something similar happened to you? lol Well you pretty much said it yourself, you love to argue. So whatever evidence anyone shows you to the contrary you rant that it's not right. While the evidence is questionnable of Libya's involvment with Pan Am, The hiding of the terrorists is not, nor is the monetary deal Qaddafi tried to come up with. You also ignored what I said about Libyan involvement with the bombing of a disco in West Germany that killed US soldiers there. Reagan could have considered it an act of war. Of course the bombing was "unprovoked" in your mind.


Oh my god, I haven't mastered the UBB code!!! Holy Shit!!!

Libya didn't bomb a disco in Germany. That was Operation Trojan by the Mossad.

*ignores the silly parts of Joe's rant*

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Libya didn't bomb a disco in Germany. That was Operation Trojan by the Mossad.

*ignores the silly parts of Joe's rant*

---

*ignores Mouse's conspiracy theories brought on by her love of killing Jews*

*Ignores Joe's last post entirely for his resorting to unprofessional name calling*

Joe, I'll settle on the terrorism point with you then as a matter of opinion of whether or not deterrence occurs.

However, I would ask that you not use a double standard and accept my humble revision of this statement:

quote:

---

For those there that don't want war, well no one does, "Live Free or Die" and to live free you have to prevent those that want to force their will on you.

---

...to this:

For those there that don't want war, well no one does, "Live Free or Die" and to live free you have to [force your will upon] those that want to force their will on you.

Joe, it was Operation Trojan. An Ex Mossad agent wrote a book.. "By Way of Deception" that describes the Operation and other Mossad accomplishments.

The manner in which Israel�s Mossad tricked the U.S. into attacking Libya was described in detail by former Mossad case worker Victor Ostrovsky in The Other Side of Deception, the second of two revealing books he wrote after he left Israel�s foreign intelligence service. The story began in February 1986, when Israel sent a team of navy commandos in miniature submarines into Tripoli to land and install a �Trojan,� a six-foot-long communications device, in the top floor of a five-story apartment building. The device, only seven inches in diameter, was capable of receiving messages broadcast by Mossad�s LAP (LohAma Psicologit�psychological warfare or disinformation section) on one frequency and automatically relaying the broadcasts on a different frequency used by the Libyan government.

The commandos activated the Trojan and left it in the care of a lone Mossad agent in Tripoli who had leased the apartment and who had met them at the beach in a rented van.�By the end of March, the Americans were already intercepting messages broadcast by the Trojan,� Ostrovsky writes.

�Using the Trojan, the Mossad tried to make it appear that a long series of terrorist orders were being transmitted to various Libyan embassies around the world,� Ostrovsky continues. As the Mossad had hoped, the transmissions were deciphered by the Americans and construed as ample proof that the Libyans were active sponsors of terrorism. What�s more, the Americans pointed out, Mossad reports confirmed it.

�The French and the Spanish, though, were not buying into the new stream of information. To them it seemed suspicious that suddenly, out of the blue, the Libyans, who had been extremely careful in the past, would start advertising their future actions�The French and the Spanish were right. The information was bogus.�

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
The Peru thing was in 1965.

---

37 years ago.

I could probably blame Clinton for this because he didn't "apologize" for it.

Since you like historical examples, let us talk about Fujimora. That is much more recent than 1965 and as an added bonus, Fujimora did NOT attend the School of the Americas.

Nox

Nox, the Peru thing was brought up because of this statement...

quote:

---

We didn't impose our will on people, they wanted to be free so we assisted them.

---

My reply is that the US does impose it's will on people for money and power reasons, and very rarely just to "help people be free" if ever. Nothing about Clinton, nothing about a certain time period it had to be in. Can you dispute that?

Here's a thought. If you are going to use really old examples, you can expect me to react. I cannot read your mind to figure out which portion of which post you are refering to.

I noticed you side-stepped Fujimora. Could it possibly be because he is not American nor an American puppet. You ignored what Fujimora did. Is it possible that you are a one-issue (anti-American) person or do you really care about the plight of others?

Nox

[This message has been edited by Nox (edited 07-29-2002).]

I do recall this conversation being about America. Not all of the examples are old either. It's not like the US had a drastic change in it's foreign policy recently.

Edit: I'm don't only dislike the US. I also dislike Israel. My opinion of Britain is lower too, thanks to Blair. Zimbabwe sucks too, and Columbia. Actually, most nations suck. The difference between the crappy nations though, is that some nations keep their suck to themselves, while nations like the US forcefully export their suck in the form of assassinations, coups, "regime changes", extortion, imbalanced trade laws, Wal-Mart, etc.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 07-30-2002).]

Ok, i'll admit its a lose conection Nox, but one all the same.

Anyway, i don't want to argue about it if you don't, i just feel that its one group fighting against an oppresor.

I'm British, therefore i can see it from your angle, the British were the superpower at the time, the americans just wanted to be free.

The americans are the superpower now, and the terrorists want their freedom.

Thats all i was stating, and you must be able to see the parrellels there.

All that i stated was that the afghanistans want to be free of all things western, and being a citizen of an oppressing nation they want to fight us as well. This is nothing different to any other conflict except possible due to the immense shrinking of the world (not physically) the situation is more at home. Obviously you wouldn't have found farmers hijacking British ships and ramming them into portsmouth harbour but that was not the mentality at the time.

And although i am on the 'other side' to the terrorists, and disagree completely with what they are doing, i can still see that from their point of view they have a valid point.

I hope you can see my point of view.

Mantis

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Nox, the Peru thing was brought up because of this statement...

My reply is that the US does impose it's will on people for money and power reasons, and very rarely just to "help people be free" if ever. Nothing about Clinton, nothing about a certain time period it had to be in. Can you dispute that?

---

You do realise that any country wishes to impose itself on nations or its own for power or money, this is nothing unusual.